IBM Did Not Invent the Personal Computer 293
theodp writes "As IBM gives itself a self-congratulatory pat on the back as it celebrates its 100th anniversary, Robert X. Cringely wants to set the record straight: 'IBM didn't invent the personal computer', writes Cringely, 'but they don't know that.' Claiming to have done so, he adds, soils the legacy of Ed Roberts and pisses off all real geeks in the process. Throwing Big Blue a bone, Cringely is willing to give IBM credit for 'having helped automate the Third Reich'."
"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know that not every comparison involving the Nazis is invalid, but does this strike anyone else as being more than a bit reductio ad Hitlerum?
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:2)
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, a bit hypocritical to just lay the blame at IBM's feet too. The US has a long history of doing business with criminal regimes from banana republics, to the nazi's, to apartheid South Africa, to regimes like Saudi Arabia today.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:2, Flamebait)
The "German branch" of IBM? Buddy, there are no "branches" in a megacorporation. You do what the head honchos at the main corporate headquarters say, or you're out of a job. Look, I know that IBM wasn't the only company to do business with the Nazis, but IBM had more inside information on the goals of the Nazis than anyone else. Tracking and segregating the Jewish population is directly credited to IBM, and quite properly so. The Nazis TOLD IBM what they wanted, and IBM delivered. There is very little waffle-room left to IBM. Maybe they didn't completely understand the ultimate goal, but they most definitely understood the intermediate goals.
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:5, Informative)
Part of that business was supplying machines that kept track of concentration camp prisoners via punch card.
Was IBM all bad? No. But was it some bad, especially during the Nazi Germany days? Hell, yes! The historical record has proven it beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, Watson and IBM were not the only corporate or finance bigwigs who did that kind of thing at the time, but do it they definitely did.
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:3)
"... as if we all didn't already know the story. What some of those people did 70 years ago was pretty awful."
I agree. But I honestly think that many people did NOT know that story. I don't think they're all trolling.
The 20th century (and probably earlier) history of politics in the United States is chock full of politicians and industrialists playing both sides of the fence. Yes, it has most definitely been pretty awful. And no, it hasn't stopped.
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:3)
I didn't know the story, but I did know that the service contract for the concentration camp management machines was paid directly to Armonk, NY.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:2)
Does that mean Henry Ford invented the automobile?
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure you may be able to say technically the first home computer that could be called personal wasn't an IBM, but does anyone run 6502 MOSFET chips anymore?
Of course not, any more than anybody runs Intel 8088 chips anymore, uses an ISA expansion bus, Shugart disc interfaces etc. I even believe that modern systems can have more than 640K of RAM...
The 6502 might not have had any official surviving children (ISTR there was a 16-bit variant used in the Apple II GS), but its pretty well documented that it was a major influence [wikipedia.org] on the design of the ARM.
Hell even Apple now is IBM PC compatible.
No, Apple uses chips based on the modern x86-32 and x86-64 architectures. I don't think the fact that these have legacy backwards-compatibility with the 8088 was a major influence on Apple's decision to switch. That has more to do with IBM and Motorola's failure to manufacture a mobile version of the PPC G5, at a time when Apple was doing rather well with non-Intel based machines...
As someone who lived through that time
You must have been very, very drunk, because you don't remember it very well.
Folks seem to forget that before the 5150 NOTHING worked together, [snip] As someone who had a Trash80 and a VIC20
Which is why, pre-PC, serious commercial microcomputer users tended to use one of the many CP/M-based systems rather than VIC20s, to the extent that there were even kludges available to run CP/M on Trash-80s and Apple IIs (the latter requiring a Z80 system on an expansion card). This is what IBM-lovers like to airbrush out of history because the "revolutionary" IBM PC was really just a "me too" CP/M-86 machine (MS-DOS/PC-DOS being, effectively, a clone of CP/M).
Now thanks to the failure of the IBM PS/2 and MicroChannel architecture you can buy...
There, put that right for you.
your printer still plugs in,
Nice to know that IBM invented the Centronics and RS232 interfaces, and that anybody who remembers using those on non-IBM computers is delusional.
you don't need IRQs or futzing or hoping you have the right slots
You seem to think IBM invented the PCI bus. They didn't - the original ISA bus had "IRQs or futzing or hoping you have the right slots" up the wazzoo.
Now if we could only get the same thing in the mobile space, to where laptops had standard motherboards like ATX and mATX
If only people didn't want their mobiles to be slim, and light, and, well, mobile...
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:3)
You seem to think IBM invented the PCI bus. They didn't - the original ISA bus had "IRQs or futzing or hoping you have the right slots" up the wazzoo.
Indeed, IBM actually went the opposite direction with the PS/2, and you had to have configuration floppies to install MCA cards even for use under DOS. The only cool thing about the hardware I messed with while working for the county of santa cruz HRA as a youngun was the PS/2 model 70, I'd mess with one of those even today. Probably no point though. When I was leaving we were just getting 486SLC PS/Valuepoints... I mean, seriously?
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:3)
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:3)
And, the 3.5" floppy (the Apple Mac had already gone that way, but you could argue that they used a different, variable speed format).
So far, the "more closed" PS/2 is looking more influential (in terms of features that even turn up in modern non-PC systems) than the "open" (on paper) original PC. :-)
But, seriously, nobody is trying to claim that the IBM PC was not massively influential or didn't dominate the market for years - the nonsense is the claim that it was the "first true personal computer". It wasn't - it was an incremental development of existing CP/M business PC systems.
Lets just pretend CP/M and S-100 never existed (Score:3)
IBM was the first computer manufacturer that brought all the elements together,
Back in reality, IBM was the computer manufacturer with a monopolistic track record that ignored PCs for years, then panicked and brought-out a "me too" system running a clone of the already-industry-standard CP/M with a kludgey not-quite-true 16-bit processor. They then used their industry muscle to take over the corporate microcomputing market (and extinguish the previous CP/M practice of designing software to be easily patched to run on diverse systems) - then got their underpants pulled up over their heads when someone found a legal way of cloning their proprietary firmware (without which, however many bloody circuit diagrams they published, nobody else could have made a software-compatible PC).
Consequently, we got stuck with CP/M functionality and paged RAM for a decade, just when CP/M was reaching its sell-by date and proper 32-bit processors were becoming available.
That's the way I remember it, anyway - and unlike your version, my version doesn't require airbrushing CP/M systems, the S-100 bus, RS232, Shugart (disc interface), Centronics (printer interface) and all the other de-facto, pre-IBM standards out of history.
Hint: one reason why some cheaper systems like the Trash 80 and Vic had proprietary connectors is that they were a fraction of the price of an IBM PC and adding (e.g.) a floppy disc interface, or even a proper "standard" expansion bus costs money. Floppy drive connectors, for example, were perfectly standard by the early 80s, but not much good unless your computer had a disc controller.
but the "PC compatible" architecture's primary competitor on the desktop was, just about 14 years ago, still rolling-out computers that had an oddball monitor connector, used proprietary expansion cards, ran a proprietary OS, and had proprietary connectors for almost all their peripherals.
...would that be the proprietary "localtalk" connectors that implemented low-cost local area networking and printer sharing years before Ethernet became affordable? Or the monitor connectors that ensured that, whatever monitor you used, on-screen, 1 pixel = 1 point when doing DTP work? Or the desktop bus system that allowed keyboards, mice, tablets etc. to be daisy-chained rather than each having to have a lead going back to the computer? Or is "SCSI" the non-standard disc interface you're talking about? Standardisation is fine provided you've finished innovating.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:4, Funny)
Be honest, you made that comment just because of the humor in a grammar nazi pointing out the error in "nazi's" didn't you ?
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:5, Interesting)
A little bit.
I'm not exactly IBM's biggest fan (having to hammer on 370-series mainframes made me quite the IBM-hater for awhile), but to say that IBM automated the Nazis would be akin to saying that {insert item here} helped to {insert what that item does} the Nazis.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that WWII Germany had light bulbs, motion pictures, aircraft, NCR calculators (the old mechanical kind), and lots of other things pioneered by American individuals and companies. I'm also willing to bet that many of them were used directly in facilitating the Holocaust as well.
Hell, Henry Ford was an open admirer of Hitler's policies before (and even in the pre-US stages of) WWII, and an unabashed anti-semite... does that make the Ford Mustang a Nazimobile?
But yeah, basically, TFA is a Godwin.
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh... but IBM actually did do a lot of contracting for the Nazis.
They weren't just Nazi sympathizers, they didn't just make general-purpose tools and end up having the Nazis use them, they worked with them extensively in a strategic alliance. They talked to them about what they wanted to get done, they helped them do it efficiently, and they put effort into hiding their role.
In particular, they were instrumental in accomplishing the identification of members of targeted ethnic groups, while being fully aware of the Nazi party's intent to persecute them. They provided the information infrastructure necessary to round up all of the jews and gypsies, knowing at the very least that they were to be rounded up.
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly! It was a now-classic consulting scenario: the business (e.g, Nazi Germany) buys a big shiny piece of hardware, and with it they get some IBM consultants to customize it. The business comes up with its business rules, e.g, every generation the Jewishness halves if a Jew marries a non-Jew, anyone who is at least 1/64th Jewish is considered a Jew, and here's some census data that says who has claimed to be a Jew up until the current moment who has married whom (gotta ferret out those crypto-Jews, sneaky though they are), and we want names and addresses out of it. Then the consultants go hmm okay that'll be $lots and implement the system.
It would have absolutely impossible for IBM's consultant programmers to have worked on this project without realizing that Hitler would be using this information to round up citizens based on their ethnicity. I can totally accept that the consultants didn't realize that the Jews would be killed (it's hard to believe that people are going to die as a result of your work, honestly), but there was no way for them to have done this without realizing that, you know, the names and addresses are popping out of our tabulating machine and going straight to the Gestapo who all run out waving truncheons.
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:2)
IBM is interesting too, they have records from that era but how much have historians seen
The next question is what did the people who sat in on this in the 1940's as younger staff fund in the 1950's, 60's
Final solutions for a small planet?
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM supplied Germany with machines and intelligence during the war, with full knowledge of Thomas Watson himself. Which at the time, if he were caught, would probably have gotten him charges of treason and aiding and abetting the enemy, at the very least.
There is strong physical evidence, including memos, invoices, and receipts, indicating that IBM (and I mean the US offices, not just some German branch) actively, during the war, supplied the Nazis with machines that were used to keep track of prisoners at concentration camps, and instruction on how to use them.
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually lets totally forget that, m'kay? Sometimes there is no need for shades of grey.
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:2)
Re:"Automate the Third Reich"? (Score:2)
Cringely is the new JonKatz [slashdot.org].
lulz research (Score:5, Interesting)
The truth about lulz : Edwin Black, an author holed up in his basement, spending years and years researching the details for a book, reading thousands of documents and talking with hundreds of people, will achieve far more lulz, in the long run, than hacking a website.
Black's book came out circa 2001. That is 10 years ago, and people still talk about it. And we still wait for IBM to open their archives.
Re:lulz research (Score:3)
IBM and the Holocaust
The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's most powerful corporation
Published by Crown Publishers, N.Y., 2001
ISBN 0-609-60799-5
Re:lulz research (Score:3)
Meanwhile the fact that IBM machines were used in the development of a weapon that could kill about 140,000 people [hiroshima.jp] at once is uncontroversial.
even pacifists were involved in that (Score:3)
I.E. einstein's letter to roosevelt.
IBM's involvement with various questionable rulers in the 20s and 30s was not done as an act of warfare, it was done for pure profit motive.
Re:lulz research (Score:3)
Killed a lot fewer people. 12 million killed in death camps vs. a couple hundred thousand by the two bombs. But then, nobody seems to cry about the fire bombing of Japanese cities, which killed far more people, mostly civilians.
Besides, with the atomic bombs, it's not so simple. I think the deciding factor was that only 1.2% of soldiers at Iwo Jima surrendered, the rest fought to their deaths in a bitter battle, in the name of their emperor. If it came to that on the Japanese islands, the country and people of Japan probably wouldn't exist as we know it today if an invasion was required to secure an end to the war.
Re:lulz research (Score:3)
And he didn't rape any Swedish women.
This just in (Score:2, Redundant)
Ad Hitlerum (Score:2)
"Press hard, you are making 6 million copies."
Naw; Godwin's Law concerns *comparisons* to Hitler and Nazis. If you're *actually talking about them for a reason*, it trips out, to avoid a recursive black hole in the fabric of the Universe.
Re:Ad Hitlerum (Score:2)
And to reply to Cringley's comments on identity theft, if everyone put their foot down and *forced service providers to stop using unchangeable, researchable authenticators like SSNs and Maiden names, all of that problem would dry up in a heart beat.
Not even close (Score:5, Interesting)
The IBM 5100 was introduced in 1975 (Score:4, Interesting)
It has the all the main personal computing features we associate with pre-Macintosh/Lisa systems, like a keyboard, CRT, local storage and user programmability. It probably predates the systems you sold by a year or two.
http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5100.html [oldcomputers.net]
Re:The IBM 5100 was introduced in 1975 (Score:2)
From History Of Computing Project [thocp.net]: "The company established what was then called the Entry Systems Division, located in Boca Raton, Florida, to develop the new system. This small group consisted of 12 engineers and designers under the direction of Don Estridge; the team's chief designer was Lewis Eggebrecht. The division developed IBM's first real PC. (IBM considered the 5100 system, developed in 1975, to be an intelligent programmable terminal rather than a genuine computer, even though it truly was a computer.)"
And $20,000 is hardly "personal", the Lisa was half that 10 years later and still spectacularly bombed.
Re:The IBM 5100 was introduced in 1975 (Score:2)
That particular price point for the 5100 was set by the marketing department, because they didn't want it to compete against their mainframe business. It could have been sold for substantially less, and did include a number of features that was well ahead of its time.
Simply put, it was never given the chance to actually be a real product because IBM didn't want it to be something an ordinary consumer could ever possibly purchase. About the only people permitted to even buy this computer were existing customers of IBM mainframes.
When the PCjr came out, they had a similar problem where the "low-cost alternative" was in many ways technically superior to the higher end mainstream computer system. So instead, IBM expended deliberate engineering effort to downgrade and cripple yet another product instead of simply letting the superior technology take root. Typical for IBM.
Re:The IBM 5100 was introduced in 1975 (Score:2)
Xerox Alto [wikipedia.org]. 1973.
Re:The IBM 5100 was introduced in 1975 (Score:2)
The Alto was just a prototype.
Re:Not even close (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember a computer trade journal article that came out about the same time the IBM PC was released, where they went through the parts list of the items that went into the original IBM PC. After going through all of the components including the case, the only thing they could identify that was original components that was actually designed by IBM engineers was the sticker label that went on the outside of the case which said "IBM".
That wasn't entirely fair as there were some IBM engineers who had to piece the components together and sort of did help design the motherboard, but otherwise not a single major component inside of that computer was even made by IBM. Even that process of designing the PC motherboard was going way outside of the normal IBM development cycle process and only when a completed motherboard was presented to IBM management that anything resembling a formal project to make the IBM PC a reality was initiated.
What the letters "IBM" did do to the personal computer industry, however, was to legitimize the industry so far as to give conservative business executives an excuse to buy the equipment. Before they weren't about to buy a beige computer from a bunch of hippies in California or a video game console that also happened to do some computing on the side. Before IBM, the personal computer industry was mainly hackers and hobbyists. Afterward, the personal computer went mainstream into homes and medium-sized businesses.
Re:Not even close (Score:3, Informative)
100% true, of course. The optional hard disks were made by Seagate (hence the legacy of the ST01 controller), the floppy drives were made by Toshiba or Chinon or somebody like that. The processor came from Intel. The optional printer was made by Epson. The motherboard was basically a reference design from Intel.
The BIOS was original, but the operating system, of course, was a 16-bit CP/M hack from a guy named Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products, who sold it to a tiny little company from Bellvue, Washington, for a few thousand bucks. Tim would go on to become a billionaire, of course, along with the founders of that tiny little computer company.
If I could go back in time, I would convince Tim Patterson that writing operating systems isn't a very good idea and he should do something else with his time.
Re:Not even close (Score:2)
The January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics introduced the Altair 8800, not Electronics World.
Pay no attention to Woz (Score:2)
Iron Sky (Score:2)
PC Invention (Score:2)
Re:PC Invention (Score:2)
Even if you ignore the Altair, and require a personal computer to be something with a keyboard and monitor, the Apple I and Apple II were out before the IBM PC (and far superior).
Not for office work.
Why do you think Microsoft's Z80 CP/M Softcard sold so well?
The Apple II has a 40 column display and NTSC or PAL output.
The Apple II keyboard - sans keypad - was awkwardly integrated into the hard shell case.
The IBM was keyboard perfection:
Byte magazine in the fall of 1981 went so far as to state that the keyboard was 50% of the reason to buy an IBM PC.
IBM Personal Computer [wikipedia.org]
Re:PC Invention (Score:3, Informative)
The IBM was keyboard perfection:
Byte magazine in the fall of 1981 went so far as to state that the keyboard was 50% of the reason to buy an IBM PC.
IBM Personal Computer [wikipedia.org]
The original keyboard for the IBM PC was a pure piece of garbage. As a matter of fact, one of the early accessories that many PC buyers purchased was a keyboard from 3rd party developers, where important keys like the "enter key" was enlarged, along with the shift keys and a spacebar that actually felt right.
Re-read that article again, to realize how many people hated the thing. I hated it and told my professors at the time.... where they cringed in disbelief that IBM could produce such a piece of crap. One of the regular features in Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Mannor column was a review of a new keyboards to replace that piece of junk.
As if to add insult to injury, the PCjr decided to downgrade even this horrible keyboard that IBM made with something even worse. It was so awful that the CEO of IBM decided to apologize and sent a new keyboard to every customer of that computer which had registered with a warranty card. Surprisingly, this "replacement" keyboard for the PCjr was even superior to that horrible IBM PC keyboard.
Re:PC Invention (Score:2)
The layout was, erm, "interesting" what with control being where caps lock is now and caps lock being down at the bottom right but back then the "enhanced 101 key" keyboards hadn't been invented. Even the IBM AT in 1984 shipped with a similar keyboard, the famous Model M didn't come out for a while afterwards.
Due to the lack of cursor keys I grew up using the numeric keypad as cursor control - and to this day I still use the numpad as my cursor control, that inverted-T layout is just weird.
Re:PC Invention (Score:4, Informative)
This is correct. The original PC/XT was good, the AT keyboard even better. The chicklet PCjr keyboard was junk.
I can't imagine any college at that time teaching programming on PC-DOS 1.0. Don't believe it.
Re:PC Invention (Score:3)
None of those were IBM Clones or compatible with them.
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. :)
Non Issue (Score:2)
It seems to me that it's pretty clear that the speaker in the video is saying that that IBM invented the Personal Computer (upper case), not the personal computer, lower case. When you watch the video, the screen is showing the case where it says "IBM Personal Computer". And I think that's worth talking about, since the majority of toeday's personal computers (both windows & mac) can trace its roots back to this architecture.
Yes, IBM invented the IBM PC, but not the PC (Score:4, Informative)
S-110 Bus systems
Radio Shack TRS-80.
Apple I
Commodore-64
Atari-800
TI 99/4
These were all the first personal computers. IBM had nothing to do with any of it.
IBM's only claim to fame is that their hardware specs allowed others to make similar systems.. so the "IBM PC" became manufacturable by many companies... and as a result... it beat out the proprietary hardware guys.
IBM has invented many things, but the personal computer is nothing they invented.
E
Re:Yes, IBM invented the IBM PC, but not the PC (Score:2, Informative)
Also: Altair 8080, Altair 680, Imsai 8080, SWTPC 6800 and NS SC/MP were all well before Apple, Commodore, Atari, TI.
All those others were "me too, me too!" companies.
IBM 5100 (Score:3)
I'm surprised that no one (not even IBM) has mentioned the IBM 5100 [oldcomputers.net]
By no means is it the first Personal Computer, but it is IBM's first PC. and its arguably the first portable computer as well.
Re:Yes, IBM invented the IBM PC, but not the PC (Score:2)
The early IBM machines were more mini computers rather than personal computers. Tandy also had a number of computer in this class. In school a hobby was going through computer catalogs, and these machines were not marketed as a computer for a individual users, rather it was a shared resource
IBM entered the market in 1980 along with many other players. Like Apple who established the GUI as a viable technology, IBM established the computer as a viable tool for the individual worker. I think It took IBM to do this because they controlled the typewriter market, and it would have been hard for a third party to displace this market. However, as IBM apparently saw the writing on the wall, rather than do what some do and continue to make buggy whips, they innovated.
Re:Yes, IBM invented the IBM PC, but not the PC (Score:2, Insightful)
"Once the BIOS was opened up"
Well, yeah. Thanks to Phoenix, the IBM PC compatible market opened up, and all the technical superior microcomputers (lacking clones) were doomed. (I'm aware of the other clones before Phoenix, when each manufacturer did their own reverse-engineering and built their own BIOS -- I assume you're referring to Phoenix's commercially available BIOS, and if not, I think you should be.)
But does IBM deserve any credit for that? They fought tooth and nail against it. The main reason IBM's box happened to be cloned was their heavy-weight name, not anything they "invented".
Re:Yes, IBM invented the IBM PC, but not the PC (Score:2)
CP/M was pretty open too.
Invented -- no. Delivered -- yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Invented -- no. Delivered -- yes. (Score:2)
Nonsense. All IBM did was provide a brand name that was palatable to corporations.
Re:Invented -- no. Delivered -- yes. (Score:2)
Re:Invented -- no. Delivered -- yes. (Score:3, Informative)
Proud Italian Americans tend to say, that once Columbus discovered America, it stayed discovered.
But that's not a good analogy for IBM's contribution to the PC. The fact is that the PC was already there, and had a decent market, and was starting to make dramatic inroads into small and medium businesses thanks to the PC's first killer-app VisiCalc (the first spreadsheet program). This program first ran on the AppleII and propelled Apple from a small (actually fairly dominant) enthusiast company to Silicon Valley's latest wunderkind. This was well before IBM got into the marketplace. But everyone knew they would, considering the surge, and the rapidly expanding business market. The thing was that at the time, IBM's entry was met with quite a bit of disappointment. We were all expecting great things, but that was decidedly not what the 1st IBM PC was. A run of the mill CPU married to an also-ran OS. Not a step forward so much as a step sideways. Also a significant departure was that none of this stuff was actually developed by IBM, but by Intel, and an unknown snot-nosed kid with a bad haircut, who's mom was on IBM's board at the time. And yet, it was destined to become a huge thing. The technology decision makers in business were certainly no more savvy then than they are now. Why did it take off? "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" was what was often said.
So, as it turns out, the singular thing that IBM contributed to the PC was its logo.
"Invented" is overused (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple did not "invent" the smartphone, Toyota did not "invent" the hybrid, and Tivo did not "invent" recording video on hard disks either.
Re:"Invented" is overused (Score:2)
Nobody "invented" the personal computer.
No one user wrote me. I'm worth millions of their man-years.
The answer is murky ... (Score:2)
The answer is murky and it depends upon how you define a personal computer. If you're talking about computers in the home, then it was probably the Apple/Commodore/Tandy triad who deserves credit. If you are talking about a standalone desktop computer, it looks like the IBM 5100 is a runner (1975). Then, of course, there are all of the people who include hobbiest machines.
Re:The answer is murky ... (Score:2)
Or if you count those funky HP programmable mega-calculators from the mid 70's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_9800_series_desktop_computers [wikipedia.org]
Hey, it fits on a desktop :)
Re:The answer is murky ... (Score:2)
And a single line display (?) would have made for a mighty exciting game of pong!
Re:The answer is murky ... (Score:2)
I had the chance to play with a couple of 9845s in college in the early 80s, and they were definitely superior to the original PC. Their tape drives might have been a bit slower, but not enough to make a difference (maybe 2s to save a file vs. 1s). And their display and graphics library were far superior, not to mention the fact that the ones I used had a bit-mapped thermal printer that could print anything on the display. To get anything comparable on a PC was practically impossible ($-wise) until the Epson came out with the MX-80 (which still couldn't print to the same resolution as the 9845-B).
Talking about pissing off (Score:2)
During a speech at work about 10 years ago, my boss started talking about innovation and how one day, out of their garage, two young engineers invented the IBM personal computer. I then corrected him but he just brushed us off. I lost all respect for this fella and transferred to another department. I still love to point out his mistake.
Other things IBM did invent (Score:4, Informative)
IBM *did* invent a few other things:
Magnetic Hard Drive
Reduced Operating Instruction Set architecture
Transistorized DRAM
Relational databases
Virtual machine operating systems
DES encryption
Scanning tunneling microscope
To name a tiny fraction. So, they do have some bragging rights.
Re:Other things IBM did invent (Score:3)
CTRL + ALT + DELETE
The First PC (Score:2)
The Scelbi Mark 8H, 1974. 8008 processor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCELBI [wikipedia.org]
So what did I buy in '79? (Score:2)
Re:So what did I buy in '79? (Score:2)
No, they didn't (was Re:Yes, they did) (Score:2, Troll)
Apple II, anyone?
IBM just made it mainstream for businesses.
Microsoft, by negotiating in such a way as to allow clones, made IBM's definition of PC explode (without IBM.)
Re:No, they didn't (was Re:Yes, they did) (Score:5, Interesting)
"Just"? You make that sound trivial, when it certainly was not.
Having been there, I can attest to the fact that IBM's PC did indeed legitimize the personal computer for not only businesses, but later for home users who, having used IBM PCs at work, wanted a familiar computer at home as well.
Back then, the mantra in business was "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", and that "magical pixie dust" settled onto the IBM PC as well... and later, with the advent of Compaq, and its "clean room" reverse engineering of the IBM PC BIOS, opened the door for all of the IBM PC compatible clones that came later, with BIOS' made by AMI, Phoenix and Award, and together they not only legitimized the PC market for business, but standardized it and the home personal computer market as well, while driving down prices as third-party manufacturers created computers based around them.
Hell, I was running a home LAN with IBM XT and AT clones, some booting from diskette [1], with an AT clone server running NetWare v2.0a [wikipedia.org] (with a Seagate ST-4096 80MB MFM HD [2]), using ARCNET [wikipedia.org][3], back in 1988. Being able to centralized my programs, data, and share a printer was a HUGE thing for me, and for my customers as well.
Later, I upgraded my server to an 80386 clone, running NetWare v3, but still kept the 80 MB HD, and it was rock-solid, and the most reliable server I've ever had at home.
Now, you could say that it was all crude, and certainly it was, by today's standards... but I installed hundreds of LANs for small/medium-sized businesses back then, and the benefit they all gained was very real.
NONE of the latter would have been possible without IBM's PC: It not only standardized the hardware and bus, but standardized the client OS as well, which resulted in an explosion of development of not only business applications, but games, and software in general as well.
So, yeah, IBM didn't invent the "PC", and there's more than a little historical revisionism going on... but, to dismiss their effect on personal computing as "just" making it mainstream for business does them disservice as well.
Regards,
dj
[1] Hard drives were very expensive back then, so it was cheaper to use one large, expensive HD in a file server, and boot the workstations from diskette... and keep a box of backup boot diskettes on hand, just in case *grin*
[2] Seagate's ST-4096 was a state-of-the-art HD then: With 28ms average access speeds, capable of running at 1 to 1 interleave, it was blisteringly fast, and very reliable. Not to mention the fact that 80MB was "Huge tracts of storage"... when I installed one a customer, long before I could afford one myself, I asked him "So, what are you going to do with so much storage?" His answer? "Anything I want" *grin*.
[3] We used ARCNET for our customers, because the NICs were FAR less expensive than Ethernet NICs. We used SMC's NICs, until Thomas-Conrad came along, and beat them not only in price, but performance - T-C's ARCNET NICs used less upper memory in enhanced mode (4K vs. 16K or 32K as I recall), and their drivers were a LOT more efficient/faster.. later, they sold a "Universal Turbo" ARCNET NIC driver that worked with any ARCNET NIC, but made their NICs a LOT faster, and that was HUGE, too, from a management perspective: We only had to use one driver, regardless of NIC manufacturer.
Back in the pre-Ethernet switch days, ARCNET also performed a lot better under load than Ethernet with the same node count per network segment, despite "only" running at 2.5Mbps vs. Ethernet's theoretical 10Mbps...and it scaled deterministically as well. In addition, ARCNET over RG-62/U coax could be run 3000 feet, active port to active port, which helped minimize the number of active hubs needed, and offered FAR more flexibility in the real world.
[4] This footnote has no referral - but I suppose that this is where I should say "You damn kids get off my lawn!" *grin*
Nostalgically,
dj
was almost there too. (Score:3)
Was a student when they were just gaining a foothold. I remember one grizzly bastard prof talking about how this PC + the just released Lotus 123 was going to put the IS group in its place.
At the time, IS departments ruled the roost, and anyone that wanted a customized view of their own data either waited an eternity for them to do a 5 minute RPG job, or had to have cum running out of their nose to get it when they needed it.
The PC changed all of that - suddenly IS lost its gatekeeper status on the data; and other than a few viruses and break-ins; we've seldom looked back.
Alas, now the cloud (new mainframe) will give the IS (now IT) group back its previous status. To paraphrase Henry Spencer:
Those that don't remember the past will reinvent it, badly.
Re:No, they didn't (was Re:Yes, they did) (Score:2)
I remember getting a replacement for a borked 20MB hard drive from Dell for $400, and while I was outraged at the price, it was really only about 30% higher than the going market rate at the time. 80 MB drives were out of our office's price range, around 40MB being what we considered "affordable".
I agree about ARCNET and Ethernet. I actually ended up hooking most of the PCs (the # of which got up to 80 in the local office not long after that) using 2Mbps Lantastic cards daisy-chained together. (If I remember properly, we had to install 2 repeaters to get that many on the network.) Lantastic might have been aimed at the SoHo market at the time, but it was a pretty darned decent networking system at the time, if you could suffer the daisy-chain architecture, and relatively cheap.
Re:Yes, they did (Score:2)
Other clones copying the IBM PC helped a lot too, to the the point that almost all x86 processors are paired with a chipset that is software-compatible with the core hardware the IBM PC had and a IBM PC compatible BIOS, the result being often called the "PC". Even Apple have switched to x86 and use the same chipsets as "PCs", one of the reasons why IMO the "PC" vs "Mac" comparison is nonsense nowadays.
Re:Yes, they did (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, they did (Score:2, Insightful)
The Apple II was plastic, toylike and very expensive for what you got. (You might as well have bought a TRS-80 and saved yourself a good chunk of change.)
The IBM PC was also expensive, but had top quality hardware similar to their mainframe terminals, including: a substantial steel chassis and case, a crisp monochrome monitor that you could actually work with all day without going blind, and one of the best keyboards ever made. It was a serious personal computer that PHBs felt comfortable buying for their businesses.
So the definition depends on your perspective. If based on technicalities, the Apple II, the Altair 8800, the Atari 2600, the Commodore PET, etc. were all "personal computers" because they had microprocessors. If based on what was understood to be a computer in the business word, the IBM PC was one of the first business computers that was small enough and inexpensive enough so that most were bought to be used by one person.
Commodore PET, TRS80 and others (Score:2)
"The Apple II was plastic, toylike and very expensive for what you got. (You might as well have bought a TRS-80 and saved yourself a good chunk of change.)"
The original TRS80 was only black and white - the Apple ][ had color
Actually I had an Apple ][+ as my 3rd computer - The first was a TRS80
and the second was a Compucolor II it had 8 colors, 128x 128 pixel graphics, 32 KB ram and a 117 key keyboard. Unfortunately it had hardly any software.
But the Apple ][ was the first expandable computer, with card slots and a top that was easily detached. The 3rd party manufacturers that started with Apple products went on to the IBM PC and helped enable the PC industry. BTW the BASIC in the Apple ][+ was written by Microsoft.
And Visicalc was the first spreadsheet
I didn't buy a PC compatable machine until 1994 - 15 years after I bought my first computer.
Re:Yes, they did (Score:3)
Having owned both an Apple //+ and an IBM PC-1 I feel I must comment on this post. The Apple did not feel flimsy. The Commodore 64 felt flimsy. Amusingly, many C64s are still working after obscene quantities of abuse. There's a lot of computer in that box, too; a friend of mine added an ISA slot to one and planted a mono text card in it for use in a cafe terminal, for example. IIRC he added an XT keyboard interface as well. Maybe that was a 128, I don't recall at this late date. The Apple had a fantastic case that no computer before or since has equaled save possibly the Macintosh IIci. It holds up amazingly well, its function is served admirably by its form, and it is utterly apprehensible as such things go. And of course, I would say the same about the C64, but with the understanding that it is so much less machine in so many ways. If the Apple had come equipped with some kind of advanced music synthesis (as did the C64) I wouldn't even be using it for comparison today.
Nobody I knew had a TRS-80. I used to go play Thexder on it at Radio Shack in the mall. It looked and felt even more flimsy than the C64. I didn't even have a 64, I had a 16. Oh, the agony.
The IBM PC was expensive; luckily I didn't pay for it. I got mine for free well after its heyday, after the demise of my first Amiga 500. I'm pretty sure it was all my fault. Actually, I think I only killed the keyboard interface or something, but it's all hazy now. For additional comparison, the Amiga 500 felt pretty sturdy but looked like garbage, however cool I thought it looked at the time. I think only the towers looked good after the A1000 until the A4000, but maybe that's just me. Consider that I was a pretty diehard Amiga wingnut at the time, too. I've got a 1200, I've had a 3000, 2000, 2500 (came that way, that is.)
Now, when you suggest that the display of the IBM PC was "crisp", I have to take exception. I had that display, and it was muddy as hell just like the IBM terminals of the day. It did, however, have more characters than the Apple. I do have to agree with you about the keyboard, although I'm not sure any keyboard ever needed to be quite so loud.
The Apple was more affordable than the IBM, not least because you could output to your television. Indeed, this trend carried all the way through the Amiga computers; a decent monitor that would do what the Amiga's video output would do was expensive at the time. Remember what the original NEC Multisync cost? Yowza. I had a CGA display hooked up to my Amiga for a while; you can imagine how disappointing that was. I puttered around with CGA and EGA on my PCs for quite some time because I couldn't afford a monitor. My first VGA monitor was a 12" or so monochrome 640x480 unit... it hurts my eyes just to think about it.
The Apple 2 family was the first credible personal computer that gained widespread popularity in the USA. The IBM PC's primary contribution was that it was blown open and endlessly cloned. Having multiple manufacturers making compatible machines is what brought us the computing landscape we know today. It could have happened to anyone, but IBM had the credibility to make people want to copy them. Given that I was using the PC-1 many years after its debut and still getting stuff done (I had Lotus and Wordstar... and a 30 MB full-height Quantum MFM disk in an external case) I have nothing against the PC. Clearly IBM created a winner. It was hilarious to see them flail with the PS/2s.
Re:Yes, they did (Score:2)
Must've really pissed them off when the term PC got stolen from them and applied to all NON-Apple computers.
Maybe that's part of why they're a bit jealous with the "App Store" branding stuff.
Re:Yes, they did (Score:2)
Must've really pissed them off when the term PC got stolen from them
For a long time all the other brands couldn't call their machines a 'PC' - they had to do it all the way out: 'IBM Compatible PC'.
Re:Yes, they did (Score:2)
sorry no, there were personal computers before the PC, but there was no PC before the PC, if anyone gets credit for ushering in the personal computer age its Apple, they were on their 3rd edition and had market IBM wanted by the time IBM wanted it and joined in
Re:Yes, they did (Score:3)
Actually they didn't (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Actually they didn't (Score:2)
Actually, there was a store in Bloomington, Indiana called The Data Domain [elinks.us] which claimed to use the term Personal Computer in advertising first. The guy who owned the Data Domain apparently talked to Steve Jobs directly on the phone to sell the Apple I.
Re:Actually they didn't (Score:2)
Re:Actually they did (Score:3)
Re:Actually they did (Score:2)
The DEC LSI-11 from the 1970s was a PDP-11 minicomputer shrunk into a case that was about the same size as an early IBM PC.
Re:Not by any measure was it the first (Score:4, Informative)
IBM put the first real personal computer on the market. Yes, prior to that I could have gone to the electronic store and bought the parts.
The only people who call this a personal computer are idiot geeks who will go to any stupid pedantry and verbal trick to 'be right' and 'know more'.
If the altair counts, then you must consider the Kenbak-1. So I win the internet.
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] : "The original line of PCs were part of an IBM strategy to get into the small personal computer market then dominated by the Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family, Apple II, Tandy Corporation's TRS-80s, and various CP/M machines.[2]"
Re:Not by any measure was it the first (Score:2)
various CP/M machines
Some of which used the S-100 bus invented by Altair.
Re:Not by any measure was it the first (Score:2)
Re:Not by any measure was it the first (Score:2)
There was the IBM 5100 [wikipedia.org] computer, which was an amazing piece of hardware. It very likely could have been the genesis of personal computers.... had IBM any sort of vision and if their marketing department wasn't so paranoid about the concept to let it out of the laboratory.
One of the amazing things about this little microcomputer was the fact that it could emulate some of the mainframe computers then in use at the time and even could in theory run some of software running on those mainframes as native binaries.
Unfortunately IBM sat on this device and only sold it to existing mainframe customers (when it was sold at all).
Sadly, the only thing that is related between this particular computer and the later IBM PC was the part numbering system, where the more famous "IBM PC" had the part number 5150.
Re:Cringely (Score:2)
Cringely isn't even a real person, it's just a pseudonym for an InfoWorld column Mark Stephens (among others) wrote for in the early 90's.
I can't even believe people still reference, let along read, this guy. One of his most famous quotes (after having been caught lying about claiming he had Ph.D. from Stanford): "a new fact has now become painfully clear to me: you don't say you have the Ph.D unless you really have the Ph.D." Really, he had to "learn" that fact? Wonder how many other "facts" he's learned...
Re:Cringely (Score:2)
In his defense, he had done all the work, but he hadn't gone through with the paperwork -- but this is just from memory.
I never bothered to finish my studies, either. I don't go around claiming to have gotten degrees that I don't have, but I can understand how one might feel entitled to a degree that one technically doesn't own, because of bureaucracy and/or circumstance. Obviously, the problem is the "entitled" aspect, and that's why I don't do what he did.
Re:Cringely (Score:3)
No, he had "taken all the coursework". The difference between "taken all the coursework" and "finished your dissertation" can be YEARS. He did what a lot of people who take the course but don't do a dissertation did - he accepted a masters and left. Unfortunately he then decided to lie about it...